Polarity marking: strategy typology #
[TBD14] [bluhdorn-lohnstein-2012] [sudhoff-2012] [Hoh92] [Hol16]
Per-language typological substrate for polarity-marking strategies (neg → affirm switches): the form-class taxonomy + per-marker environments + the cross-linguistic entry record. Fragment files for Dutch, German, English, Italian, Spanish, French, Swedish populate the schema; Studies files (TurcoBraunDimroth2014, GarassinoJacob2018, MaticNikolaeva2018) consume it for cross-linguistic predictions.
Moved from Features/InformationStructure.lean in the 0.230.493 cleanup
(commit 3/3 of the InformationStructure dump-bag dissolution; cluster B
of the multi-agent audit). The B-cluster's 12-file consumer base —
7 Fragments + 4 Studies + 1 Theory — matches the per-language-typology
shape of Typology/Indefinite.lean, Features/Possession.lean, etc.,
not the feature-taxonomy shape Features/ is for. Names tightened
in the 0.230.496 follow-up (PolarityMarkingStrategy/Env/Entry →
Strategy/Env/Entry) per mathlib idiom: short type name in deep
namespace (Polynomial.Monic not PolynomialMonic).
Framework commitment (from the original docstring; copied here as the substrate's load-bearing self-aware note):
This taxonomy treats polarity-marking strategies as form-class properties
(a particle either is or is not polarityReversal), aligned with the
[bluhdorn-lohnstein-2012] / [sudhoff-2012] / [TBD14]
tradition that pairs polarity contrast with specific lexical or prosodic
devices. See Studies/TurcoBraunDimroth2014.lean for
the canonical consumer.
This framework is contested. [MN18] (in
[DS18b]) explicitly reject the form-class encoding,
arguing that "polarity focus" is not a fixed form-meaning association
but a pragmatic interpretation arising from context — they propose
salient polarity as the correct construct.
[GJ18] (same volume, fn 13) endorse the M&N view:
"PF (or salient polarity as they prefer to name this specific type of
emphasis) is not directly encoded by certain linguistic forms in a
given language but can be pragmatically conveyed by different
structures under appropriate (contextual) conditions." So the very
chapter that anchors Fragments/Italian/PolarityMarking.lean::siChe
disagrees with the encoding choice this enum makes.
The non-equivalence between form-class encoding and M&N's pragmatic
salient-polarity property is stated as a Lean theorem in
Studies/MaticNikolaeva2018.lean. The substrate
keeps the form-class enum because (a) it has 8 cross-language
consumers via TBD2014, (b) M&N's framework is one alternative among
several — alongside [Hoh92]'s verum-as-illocutionary-operator
(Studies/Hohle1992.lean),
[RH04]'s epistemic-CONJ FOR-SURE-CommonGround
(Studies/RomeroHan2004.lean), and
[Gut15]'s use-conditional sentence-mood operators
(Semantics/Mood/Gutzmann.lean +
Studies/Gutzmann2015.lean, where verum
composes via DEONT/EPIS/HKNOW dimensions orthogonal to truth-
conditional polarity). All three sibling frameworks are in tension
with the form-class encoding for different reasons; the
incompatibilities are recorded, not silently resolved.
How a language marks polarity switches (neg → affirm). See module docstring for the framework-commitment note.
- particle : Strategy
Sentence-internal affirmative particle (e.g., Dutch wel)
- verumFocus : Strategy
Pitch accent on the finite verb ([Hoh92] Verum focus)
- polarityReversal : Strategy
Polarity-reversing particle: affirms [+Pol] while contradicting a negative context (e.g., German doch, Swedish jo, French si; [Hol16]). The cross-linguistic lumping under this constructor records a shared functional role only — the surface categories vary (response particle vs. clause-initial construction vs. discourse particle); see [GJ18] fn 11.
- other : Strategy
Other strategy (e.g., pre-utterance particle, intonation pattern)
- unmarked : Strategy
No overt polarity marking
Instances For
Equations
- Semantics.Polarity.Marking.instDecidableEqStrategy x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Environments / contexts a polarity-marking strategy may be available
in. Bundles the structural-position dimension (sentenceInternal
vs. pre-utterance) with the discourse-context dimensions (contrast,
correction) so per-language entries record one set rather than
three parallel Bools.
- sentenceInternal : Env
Position: marker appears sentence-internally (vs. pre-utterance).
- contrast : Env
Discourse: marker is available in contrast contexts.
- correction : Env
Discourse: marker is available in correction contexts.
Instances For
Equations
- Semantics.Polarity.Marking.instDecidableEqEnv x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
A cross-linguistic polarity-marking entry.
Unified structure for all strategies — particles (Dutch wel),
prosodic (German VF), or other. Language-specific Fragment files
instantiate this with appropriate optional fields. The
environments field records the set of Env
positions/contexts the marker is available in.
See module docstring for the framework-commitment note: this schema
records form-class properties in the Blühdorn/Sudhoff/TBD2014
tradition, an encoding contested by [MN18]
(formalized in Studies/MaticNikolaeva2018.lean).
The schema is intentionally thin — syntactic position
(clause-initial construction vs. response particle vs.
sentence-medial discourse marker) is not encoded;
cross-linguistic entries grouped under the same strategy
constructor may differ on this dimension.
- label : String
Descriptive label (e.g., "wel", "Verum focus", "doch (pre-utterance)")
- form : Option String
Surface form, if the strategy is a particle
- prosodicTarget : Option String
What bears prosodic prominence, if the strategy is prosodic
- environments : Set Env
Set of positions/contexts in which this marker is available.
- strategy : Strategy
The polarity-marking strategy category